Factors influencing individuals' decision-making during high-risk short-notice disasters: the case study of the August 21st, 2011 Goderich, Ontario tornado
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hazards literature has identified many factors as being influential in the decision making process during high risk, short-notice disasters. Risk perception and previous disaster experience are commonly identified as two of the more influential factors in this complex process. However, few studies adequately address the complex role(s) that these factors play in self-protective decision-making during successive high-risk events. In particular, the role of previous disaster experience during subsequent events is still a matter of considerable discussion and inconsistent findings. \n \nThis thesis examines two events that occurred in August, 2011 in Goderich, Ontario: an F-3 tornado that struck the community on August 21st and a tornado warning that was posted for the region three days later on August 24th. This case study provided the opportunity to examine the roles of risk perception and previous disaster experience in the decision-making process during successive high-risk events. Semi-structured interviews (n=35) and close-ended questionnaires (n=268) were conducted to learn about the ways that individuals obtained and understood risk information, and to explore whether and how such information guided protective behaviors during the two events. The interviews were analyzed using thematic coding to identify response patterns, and the questionnaires were analyzed using IBM SPSS software. \n \nIt was found that a sizable portion of the sample population took protective actions on August 24th in ways that were inconsistent with their actions on August 21st. Also, a significant portion of respondents chose not to take any form of protective action on August 24th despite having previously experienced the damaging tornado. The findings of this research suggest that the significance of previous disaster experience in the decision-making process is highly variable and context-dependent. A second significant research finding involves the impact of the tornado on the place attachments of Goderich residents. It was found that the disaster had significant impacts, both positive and negative, on participants' sense of place. These findings have implications for both short- and long-term disaster recovery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".